Computerized Concussion Testing Yields More Cautious Return To Play Timeline

When computerized neuropsychological testing is used, high school athletes suffering from a sports-related concussion are less likely to be returned to play within one week of their injury, according to a study in The American Journal of Sports Medicine. Unfortunately, concussed football players are less likely to have computerized neuropsychological testing than those participating in other sports.

A total of 544 concussions were recorded by the High School Reporting Information Online surveillance system during the 2008-2009 school year. Researchers looked at each of those instances to see what caused the injury, what sport was being played, what symptoms were experienced, what type of testing was used, and how soon the athletes returned to play.

When looking at the causes and duration of concussions, the research found that:

* 76.2% of the concussions were caused by contact with another player, usually a head-to-head collision
* 93.4% of concussions caused a headache; 4.6% caused loss of consciousness
* 83.4% experienced resolution of their symptoms within a week, while 1.5% had symptoms that lasted longer than a month.

Do Young Athletes Need Practice Or Genetics? A Conversation With Peter Vint

Recently, while I was taking up my normal Saturday position on a youth soccer game sideline, I overheard a conversation between two parents as they watched the players warm-up. “I just love watching James play soccer.  He’s just one of those natural talents.” “I agree. Even though his parents never played growing up, he just seems to have inherited all the right genes to be a top player.” 

It’s a common belief among parents and some coaches that kids either have “it” or they don’t.  Of course, some skills can be gained from practice, but the talent theory of player development and team selection seems to favor the opinion that athletic skill is “hard-wired”, unable to progress much beyond the natural limit.

Now, several books are out to prove this theory incorrect, with titles such as “The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born, Its Grown”, “Talent Is Overrated”, and “The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong.” The common thread through all of the research studies quoted by the authors is the mantra that practice makes perfect. More specifically, about 10,000 hours of highly structured practice is required to reach elite performance levels.

Is athletic success that black or white? Instead, is there a combination of talent and tenacity that is required to reach the top? I put these questions to an expert who spends most of his waking hours trying to find the answer.

Peter Vint

Peter Vint is the High Performance Director for the United States Olympic Committee. His responsibilities include leading and coordinating the efforts of sport science and medical professionals focused on the Olympic sports of swimming, track and field, shooting, equestrian, weightlifting, and golf as well as the Pan Am sports of bowling and water skiing.

His team is responsible for conceptualizing, developing, and implementing successful and sustainable applied sport science programs with a focus on maximizing athlete development, performance, and longevity.

Recently, Peter was kind enough to endure my endless questions on this topic. Here is a synopsis of our conversation: